RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.
>>In
>>fact there really hasn't been
>>any history of terrorism in
>>the Middle East.
>
>What do you call the conflicts
>between Palestinians and Israelis? Or
>the bombs that blew up
>vehicles in the area? I
>really don't think that's peaceful,
>or state-sponsored. I guess it
>would be...what is the correct
>word...hmmm....TERRORISM.
Keep my replies in context. Notice I said there are few against the United States. Those sub-terrorist attacks in Israel are rinky-dink little skirmishes if anything.
>>Yes,
>>there are terrorist groups that
>>come out of the Middle
>>East, but rarely any terrorist
>>acts, at least against the
>>United States.
>
>However the US must take some
>precautions against terrorism, seeing as
>a lot of people dislike
>us in the Middle East.
Because what, there are car-bombs in Israel? The thing is, is that floating explosive boats are quite rare and Yemen's port was considered safe as safe goes. Many countries in the Middle East don't like us, but there are few that'll do anything TO us. Vin Ladden (sp?) is supposedly responsible for the attack, not the nations in the area.
>>>The European countries should have: Poland
>>>and Russia and France.
>>
>>Those European countries *did* do what
>>they could. *France?*
>>France was completely taken over
>>and Russia was pushed back.
>> Of all the countries
>>France was probably the country
>>that did the *least* in
>>the war.
>>
>>Many more lives could have been
>>saved if we had stepped
>>in with our massive industrial
>>strenth and laid low Hitler
>>at the beginning of the
>>war. Sure, many Jews
>>had already died by that
>>time, but it could have
>>save many. The same
>>goes for Japan and the
>>rape of Nanking of China.
>> Many lives and towns
>>in Europe could have been
>>saved too.
>>
>>So what would you prefer, catching
>>a war when it is
>>out of control, or nipping
>>it in the bud?
>
>When Germany annexed Czechoslovakia, none of
>the other countries did anything
>about it. England just sat
>back, and France felt too
>meek to do anything. If
>they even tried to intervene,
>no matter how weak, they
>would have accomplished something. Germany
>would be caught off guard,
>and the Holocaust could never
>have happened. Then again, history
>might have run its course,
>but you cannot blame them
>for trying. Right now, I'm
>saying they SHOULD have tried.
A weak offensive is good as no offensive. What, do you think history books are going to congratulate France on a worthless attack on Germany? "Well, we TRIED," oh that's useful. What do you think France could accomplish? Nothing.
England let Germany keep Czechoslovakia because, #1, it isn't worth going to war defending that nation, especially since the German population there WANTED to be annexed, #2, England didn't have the money to finance another war, and #3, Hitler was already poised to go to war.
>>Get your facts right: The
>>United Nations was created to
>>serve as a place where
>>countries could meet and avoid
>>wars/settle conflicts. It is
>>NOT meant to help "budding
>>nations" or build up the
>>economic and political infrastructures.
>>Those might be on the
>>side but they are not
>>the primary purpose.
>
>Simply put, the primary purpose of
>the UN is to acheive
>world peace. Or do you
>have to disagree with that
>as well? Well, if that
>is its primary goal, has
>it acheived it? No, for
>obvious reasons as peace is
>difficult to obtain. Nobody should
>believe that the UN could
>have achieved its goal yet.
>However, what has the UN
>done to acheive its goal?
>It's done tons of stuff,
>including sanctions. How much has
>it accomplished? Virtually nothing since
>its creation.
There *is* no world peace obtainable. The UN doesn't strive for that, it provides a way to maintain peace as best possible. So far it hasn't done a bad job, because there haven't been any huge conflicts lately.
>How many wars has the UN
>prevented? None.
How can you tell? There haven't been many wars lately have there? It seems they're doing their job. Yeah, there are small ones in Africa, but those are hard to manage and not really worth the effort. The UN (or rather NATO) stepped up to the plate in the Desert Storm war.
>How many people have died while
>in areas under UN "protection"?
>Thousands.
Those thousands would've died anyway. You can't save them all.
>Where in the world have we
>experienced the non-proliferation of nuclear
>weapons? Nowhere.
Why does that matter? What is the UN going to do about it? There is nothing in the charter that says a country can't build their own nuclear weapons. If anything, nuclear weapons help maintain peace.
>How many chemical/biological/atomic/nuclear weapons still exist?
>Shitloads.
And what, do you expect the UN to demand the destruction of them? Who do you expect to comply? The UN isn't about removing the tools of war or about making world peace, it is a way to settle conflicts, problems, and disputes peacefully, and it does just that.
>Now, how can they achieve their
>primary purpose with all this
>stuff going on? Stumped? Well,
>I am, too.
Not stumped at all. I think you've just got the wrong picture of the UN.
>If people want socialism, so be
>it. If they want a
>dictatorship, so be it. They
>have the numbers and power.
>I'll still be there complaining
>about how to better the
>situation, and act in our
>national interest. Seriously, though, if
>you could convince me that
>dictatorship would improve the US,
>I would support whatever you
>do to make the country
>better. This is the attitude
>politicians should have. Take a
>stance at betterment of the
>nation, and convince the populace
>of the benefits. I generally
>believe people have good intentions,
>and that will help the
>country in the long run.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm proving YOU wrong. You're the one saying that politicians should work for the betterment of the country and not for the vote. I'm saying that the "betterment" is relative and that stance for politicians usually turns to socialist dictatorships. I'm saying that politicians should be going for the vote because it represents the will of the people.
So don't throw the question back onto me.
>How do I back up complaints?
>How about this:
>
>I was complaining because I am
>at heart, an evil and
>sadistic person, that loves to
>complain. My complaints were the
>result of pent-up rage that
>has been fermenting in my
>intestines for the past month,
>no wait, that's my constipation
>
I think you're complaining because you have no *CLUE* as to what is really going on here. Ignorance builds rage. Understand the situation and you'll come to understand why you're mad, or why you're actually not.
For instance, people think this government really sucks. I say it works as well as it can for its size. I ask them to propose a better system. Somebody tried. I showed that his "perfect" system was no different than the current system. He never returned. People don't like seeing the truth because they have nothing to be mad about anymore. So if you're going to complain about the current situation, make sure you know what you're really complaining about and whether your anger lies somewhere else.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
